The day after Republican Rand Paul's landslide primary victory in Kentucky, the mainstream Left tried to paint him as a segregationist, while the mainstream Right either ignored or attacked him. And for good reason. Like his father Ron, Rand represents revolution, and the establishment is petrified.

Let's begin with the Left. Afraid that they can't beat a conservative Republican of Paul's pedigree in the Tea Party-influenced, anti-Obama political climate of 2010, liberals are trying to run against him in 1964. Cherry-picking irrelevant references Paul has made about private property rights and how they could possibly relate to the Civil Rights Act or even the Americans with Disabilities Act, Democrats are trying to portray Rand the libertarian as a closeted Klansman who secretly hates "coloreds" and "cripples."

It's no surprise that in any discussion about government intrusiveness and private business, race-obsessed liberals immediately equate free will and free markets with Jim Crow. When MSNBC's Rachel Maddow hysterically brought up the specter of segregated lunch counters during an interview with Paul, author Thomas Woods noted the absurdity of even having such a conversation today. Writing for The American Conservative, Woods says: "Any non-hysteric knows a segregated restaurant would be boycotted and picketed out of existence within 10 seconds, but we're supposed to fret about fictional outcomes from the repeal of a law that will never be repealed." Fictional indeed.

And portraying Paul as somehow being anti-black is no different than conservatives who portray antiwar protesters as anti-American; in both cases, legitimate concerns by citizens about the actions of their government are misconstrued to imply horrible and untrue things about the concerned. Liberals howl when right-wing talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck call President Obama "racist," and now the Left shamelessly borrows from their playbook.

But it's not just the Left who are upset over the rapid ascent of America's next top conservative idol. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum finds Paul to be as "extreme" as liberals do, writing on the day after the election, "Rand Paul's victory in the Kentucky Republican primary is obviously a depressing event for those who support strong national defense and rational conservative politics."

Frum's preferred candidate in the Kentucky primary, Trey Grayson, was not only a former Bill Clinton Democrat but a George W. Bush Republican who deviated rarely from the party establishment and heartily received their endorsement. Both former Vice President Dick Cheney and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell lined up behind Grayson in a desperate attempt to prevent Paul from winning. With Paul trouncing Grayson 59 percent to 34 percent, the old Republican guard lost in a Randslide.

Fashioning himself and his Bush league friends as supporters of "strong national defense" and "rational conservative politics," it doesn't take much investigation to discover what Frum believes "rational conservative politics" to be: a return to a GOP brand that today's grassroots conservatives reject most  big-spending, debt-doubling neoconservatism. Disaffected Republicans turned Tea Partiers are not as enamored with America's ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan as they once were, and they aren't so in love with war that they will ignore the continued growth of big government, a narrative Bush and the neocons successfully used for eight years to keep rank-and-file Republicans in line. Frum's fear is that Kentuckians, and Americans at large, might be encouraged to actually think about the wisdom of American foreign policy.

And this fear extends to conservative talk radio, where on the day after Paul's victory, hosts Limbaugh and Sean Hannity said next to nothing about it. Compare their silence to the election of Scott Brown, the Massachusetts senator who received wall-to-wall coverage in the conservative media. Why was there so much excitement for this moderate-to-liberal Republican from Massachusetts? That's easy. Brown was a conventional Republican who excited the conservative base without upsetting the GOP establishment. Paul is the opposite. The Hill's John Feehery notes the difference: "Rand Paul will be more than the skunk at the garden party in the U.S. Senate. He will be subversive when it comes to critical Republican orthodoxies." Like his father, Rand is the Republican establishment's worst nightmare.

It's somewhat appropriate that liberals would go all the way back to 1964 in order to attack Rand, because his rise truly is the resurgence of a Barry Goldwater-style, limited-government philosophy. Goldwater's politics were once the bedrock of American conservatism, but today those beliefs are controversial, not only to the Left with its race obsession, but the mainstream Right, which fails to find virtue in Rand's "extremist" brand of liberty. This ridiculous, two-party status quo restricts substantive debate, impedes real reform, and begs for revolution. And whether the establishment likes it or not, Rand Paul just might give it to them.

If you hit someone and kill their family, they will hate you and probably hit you back in the future.Ron Paul.

______________

Are you saying ^that^ isn’t true?

more from the same article:

“America first. That is what Ron Pauls national defense proposal is all about. And with America he means all Americans, not just the elite. If elected President, Ron Paul will continue his efforts to secure our borders, hunt down the 9/11 terrorist planners (who are still at large), safely withdraw our troops from Iraq and other countries around the world, and finally overhaul the intelligence apparatus in cooperation with intelligence professionals rather than political opportunists.”

Au contraire libertarians are all in favor of you defending yourself and our country defending itself. What we are against is running around the world being everyone’s cop, international meals on wheels and relief organization. The purpose of a military is to kill people and break things. If someone attacks us we go kill and break them until then we leave well enough alone.

“But to claim talk-radio has been critical of Paul is really a stretch.”

Actually it is a LIE.
Conservative website Redstate - conservatives - went to bat for Rand Paul. So did Sen DeMint. So did a lot of conservatives on talk radio and in columns and other media.
and as you note - “He has also been very vocally defended by no less a mainstream conservative radio talker than Mark Levin.”
He wouldnt have won without that help.

This whole column has slanders and just plain stupidities. not only is this guy smearing conservatives, he is stupidly dragging out the 1964 civil right issue - one that Rand Paul wants to lay to rest.

and btw, since when does moderate Frum represent conservatives? He doesnt!

Ron Paul’s biggest enemy in 2008 was the caravan of kooks who followed him, bashing anyone supportive of GWOT as warmongerers, and even touting 9/11 kookiness. These are leftists in libertarian drag.

Here is Rand Paul - MAJOR TWO PARTY CANDIDATE - in need of a boost, and this idiot says: “This ridiculous, two-party status quo restricts substantive debate, impedes real reform, and begs for revolution.” ... OH REALLY?!? Didn’t Rand Paul just WIN!?!? It’s as if to shout “look at me, I’m an extremist”.

If you want to help Rand Paul win, writing stupid columns like this is NOT IT.

Would YOU have kicked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1990? the non-intreventionist would have let him stay, and hed be the most powerful evil despot today and not a dead dictator.

LOL. Hussein a creaky Mussolini lite anti-Iran, secularist would be a "powerful evil despot?" Do you really believe that Wilsonian fairy tale? Had we stayed out and we'd be more a than a trillion dollars richer and a pro-Iran/non-secularist regime would not now rule Iraq. Of course, the King of Kuwait might no longer be able to add to his harem....but that's none of our beezwax.

I will be willing to take this bet with all the conservatives "horrified" by Paul's candidacy: "You are going to discover that Rand Paul votes more consitently with Conservative causes than you will find is true of any Republican East of the Hudson or West of the Rockies, and you are going to find that unlike Republicans who pay lip-service to decreasing the deficit with no intention of doing so, Paul will actually vote that way."

Scott Brown took exactly one vote on a major position to betray so many of the FReepers who sent him money. To most of us, it was disappointing, but no surprise.

Non-interventionist means surrender monkey, cowardly, unprincipled, anticonservative and anti-American, whether the surrender monkey is Ron Paul or Dennis Cuckoocinich (his Demonrat partner in anti-Americanism. I've seen little evidence that Rand is the sort of despicable traitor (in time of 2 wars no less) that his father and his father's love slaves and zombies are.

Rand seems to be pro-life where his father is a pacifist dissenter from the war to actually protect the babies. Rand seems to be pro-marriage where his father favors fudgepacker "rights" as evidenced by his vote on the DADT repeal. If Rand proves untrustworthy on these major issues, his career will be a very short and unpleasant one since Kentucky does not share Galveston's water system. Goldwater was a libertine imbecile and every bit as much a liar on baby-killing in his 1980 campaign as Ron Paul has turned out to be on so many issues. Unlike his father, Rand may even prove to oppose earmarks.

33
posted on 06/01/2010 3:48:12 PM PDT
by BlackElk
(Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.